1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Ruling of the CA On July 31, 2017, the CA affirmed the NLRC's Decision and dismissed Apolinario's Petition. The CA held that Apolinario's repatriation was due to the completion of his contract and that Apolinario had no complaint whatsoever when he disembarked from the vessel. Moreover, the CA pointed out that Apolinario was no longer a subject of any POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) when he was found unfit to work. Not being covered by the contract, the CA denied Apolinario's claim based thereon. Lastly, the CA opined that Apolinario did not proffer any reason for his failure to undergo the required post-employment medical examination. Having failed to undergo the required medical test, the CA concluded that Apolinario cannot be entitled to disability benefits. Hence, the instant Petition. The Ruling of this Court At the outset, it is to be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts; thus, its jurisdiction is limited only to reviewing errors of law. The rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, one of which is where the findings of fact of the quasi-judicial bodies and the appellate court are contradictory, such as the instant case. Thus, this Court is constrained to review and resolve the factual issue in order to settle the controversy.[18] The present controversy involves the claim for permanent and total disability benefits of a seafarer. Apolinario argues that contrary to the findings of the NLRC and the CA, his illness is presumed as work-related and compensable. Likewise, Apolinario argues that his cause of action had not prescribed yet as he instituted his action against the respondents within the three-year reglementary period. The petition is meritorious. Work-relatedness and compensability of the disease The 2000 POEA-SEC provides that any sickness resulting in disability because of an occupational disease listed under Section 32(A) of this Contract is deemed to be workrelated, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. Section 20(B)(4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, on the other hand, declares that if the illness, such as diabetes mellitus, is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32(A), the ailment is disputably presumed as work-related. The effect of the legal presumption in favor of the seafarer is to create a burden on the part of the employer to present evidence to overcome the prima facie case of workrelatedness. Absent any evidence from the employer to defeat the legal presumption, the prima facie case of work-relatedness prevails.[19] To reinforce the prima facie case in his favor, Apolinario stated that during the existence of his contract, he experienced recurring dizziness and was diagnosed at As Salama https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65782 4/14